Higgs field popular descriptions

[WaveHarmony]

Hi Drakkith,

I think it would help in the following way. There must be a single unified description of the world which can provide a starting point for the unification of physics. It's just that we haven't quite found the right description yet. In the past, attempts at unification have been based on trying to extend existing theories without giving sufficient consideration to the physical description which provides the context for the mathematical equations. Particularly in quantum theory and QED there is a strong assertion against consideration of the interpretation of the equations (quote: shut up and calculate). My view is that the unification of physics requires consideration at the descriptive level before moving on to frame the equations for the physical laws in this context. Only when we have constructed a valid description will it be possible to develop the theory and maths in the right context.

In order to bridge between the descriptive level and the mathematical equations it is important to decide which properties are fundamental i.e. which properties will appear in the equations of the theory. I have analysed that the properties energy, momentum and spacetime are fundamental and the properties of mass, charge, force and field are dependent properties. This means that any development of a field theory aimed at unification will not be addressing the problem at the most fundamental level.

This approach means that we have to go back and review some of the ideas that have developed over the past few hundred years in the description of physical phenomena. For example the description of light as a varying electromagnetic field matches theory with experiment but since we are taking the view that field is a dependent property we have to look for an underlying cause of the varying electric and magnetic field in terms of our fundamental properties. We have to consider waves in spacetime that have energy and momentum as providing the underlying cause of the electromagnetic field associated with light.

I see that in this thread we have digressed from the original topic of the Higgs field giving mass but it does illustrate the problem that arises when trying to deal with physical theories which are incompatible at the descriptive level.

WaveHarmony

 

[Dead Boss]

My view is that the unification of physics requires consideration at the descriptive level before moving on to frame the equations for the physical laws in this context. Only when we have constructed a valid description will it be possible to develop the theory and maths in the right context.

I disagree. How will you possibly know that the "descriptive level" is correct? You have to match some numbers with experiments and to do that you need mathematical model.

In order to bridge between the descriptive level and the mathematical equations it is important to decide which properties are fundamental i.e. which properties will appear in the equations of the theory.

Whether property is fundamental or not is surprisingly irrelevant in physics. Most of the time you have a certain relation between quantities and you can rewrite the equations in terms of any quantity you want. Speculating which is more fundamental is certainly useful but once you have a good understanding of the theory itself.

I have analysed that the properties energy, momentum and spacetime are fundamental and the properties of mass, charge, force and field are dependent properties.

If by "analysed" you mean "made up" than yes I agree.

 

[Drakkith]

Hi Drakkith,

I think it would help in the following way. There must be a single unified description of the world which can provide a starting point for the unification of physics. It's just that we haven't quite found the right description yet. In the past, attempts at unification have been based on trying to extend existing theories without giving sufficient consideration to the physical description which provides the context for the mathematical equations. Particularly in quantum theory and QED there is a strong assertion against consideration of the interpretation of the equations (quote: shut up and calculate). My view is that the unification of physics requires consideration at the descriptive level before moving on to frame the equations for the physical laws in this context. Only when we have constructed a valid description will it be possible to develop the theory and maths in the right context.

The interpretations of the theory have no reflection on the math used, so I don't see how you came by this conclusion. In fact it seems to be the very opposite. Our description of the world was forcibly changed during the development of QM because the only math that worked was the one that described it as we view it now.

In order to bridge between the descriptive level and the mathematical equations it is important to decide which properties are fundamental i.e. which properties will appear in the equations of the theory. I have analysed that the properties energy, momentum and spacetime are fundamental and the properties of mass, charge, force and field are dependent properties. This means that any development of a field theory aimed at unification will not be addressing the problem at the most fundamental level.

And how did you determine this?

This approach means that we have to go back and review some of the ideas that have developed over the past few hundred years in the description of physical phenomena. For example the description of light as a varying electromagnetic field matches theory with experiment but since we are taking the view that field is a dependent property we have to look for an underlying cause of the varying electric and magnetic field in terms of our fundamental properties. We have to consider waves in spacetime that have energy and momentum as providing the underlying cause of the electromagnetic field associated with light.

What do you mean by "waves in spacetime"? How could they possible create a field?

I see that in this thread we have digressed from the original topic of the Higgs field giving mass but it does illustrate the problem that arises when trying to deal with physical theories which are incompatible at the descriptive level.

WaveHarmony

I think the only problem here is that your understanding of physics is incomplete. Have you asked yourself what makes you qualified to determine how science should progress? Do you really understand everything about QM and GR and why they don't work together?

 

[WaveHarmony]

I take on board a lot of the comments in the last two posts from Dead Boss and Drakkith.

It is true to say that there is a problem with knowing that the descriptive level is correct. What I am saying is that the descriptive level is important, but it is only when this is combined with the mathematical models of the theory that it all fits together.

I would like to illustrate my point with reference to the development of special relativity and general relativity. The papers written by Albert Einstein reveal that he proceeded with a number of thought experiments to reach his conclusions. He worked out in special relativity that, given the experimental result of the constant speed of light this must lead to certain conclusions about space and time. The theory of general relativity was more difficult to work out and a key thought experiment was the equivalence between a uniform acceleration and gravitational effects. He realized that space coordinates could not be Euclidean and realized that Gaussian coordinates were needed to represent curved spacetime. He had to assimilate new mathematical constructs in order to fully develop the theory.

My point is that Einstein worked out his theories at the descriptive or conceptual level as a first step before moving on to decide how to frame the equations which model the theory.

So I am saying that the approach to a unified theory of physics should be similar in process to the development of GR.

We need to resolve some of the inconsistencies at the conceptual level and then move on to deal with the underlying theory. A possible approach would be to take GR as a starting point. Then when it comes to dealing with QM and QED it is the interpretation of the theory (i.e. the descriptive level) which is undefined or unresolved. The unresolved points between GR, QM and the standard model which are discussed in this thread and others include the nature of mass (GR view vs Higgs field), the nature of the fundamental forces, the nature of charge and the structure of the electron.

I have some ideas on these points which I would like to share even though I am not qualified in physics above A level and maths above MA level. I have previously posted that mass is fully explained by GR as long as we can describe how an electron curves spacetime. This leads to the idea of an electron as comprising a looped wave disturbance in spacetime. This emphasises the wave aspect of the electron as revealed in QM and QED while giving it a real physical meaning. The fundamental forces (gravity, strong and weak nuclear and electromagnetic) can be seen as a result of a difference in energy between possible alternate states. There being four fundamental forces is as a result of the architecture of the atom. Electric charge is an an intrinsic property of electrons and protons. Given the idea of an electron comprising a looped wave in spacetime we can imagine a local variation in spacetime curvature that is the wave but if we view this as a variation in space curvature with a superimposed variation in the time dimension then we would have a net expansion or compression of space leading to the energy differences which in turn lead to electrostatic forces.

I am not claiming to have a complete solution but I am trying to illustrate how a change of ideas at the conceptual level could lead to the refinement of existing theories such as QM and QED which have some areas of deficiency.

WaveHarmony

 

[Vanadium 50]

Let me remind everyone to take a look at PF's rules on overly speculative posts.